R/SCR.A/12343/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12343 of 2025 ========================================================== GHANSHYAMBHAI RAMNIKBHAI SATAPARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS MAMTA S RAJPUT(13215) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 08/10/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR being CR No.11192008250180 of 2025 registered with Bavla Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 333, 62 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act filed at the instance of respondent No.2 alongwith all consequential proceedings. [2.0] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not played any active role and has not abetted the offence and no any specific role is attributed to the present petitioner. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the complainant or to anyone and hence, he has requested to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned proceedings. Page 1 of 5 R/SCR.A/12343/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025 [3.0] Learned APP appearing for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat has vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioner is having 10 similar past antecedents and he has played active role in the present offence by kpeeing watch prior to the alleged offence. One eye-witness has also stated about the role of the present petitioner which is corroborated by the statement of co-accused. Not only that, with common intention present petitioner stayed outside the Kanyadan Jewelers as a pre-planned conspiracy and he recced and entire incident took place. Further, investigation is at nascent stage and his name is mentioned in column No.2 of the charge- sheet. Even otherwise, after investigation, if sufficient evidence or material is collected and charge-sheet is filed, even thereafter the petitioner – accused is having a right to seek quashing of the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet however, this is not the stage where present petition seeking quashing of impugned FIR is required to be entertained. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present petition. [4.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. [5.0] Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and perusing the investigation papers, it prima facie appears that present petitioner is named in the FIR in aid of section 62 of the BNSS. The allegation is that during the incident, one co-accused was inside the shop and present petitioner was R/SCR.A/12343/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025 keeping watch outside the shop as part of common intention. One eye-witness has also specifically stated about the role of the present petitioner alongwith co-accused after doing the recce prior to alleged incident in the pretext of quotation they entered with common intention to commit the offence and thereafter the co-accused entered the shop namely Kanyadan Jewelers and assaulted the complainant with hammer and at the time when the present petitioner was outside the shop, one witness interacted with the co-accused outside the shop and asked the petitioner the reason of his presence outside the shop to which the petitioner replied that he is doing work of organizing events and due to this reason he was present there but the petitioner failed to disclose his identity or to furnish any detail as regards his identity to the said witness at the time of alleged incident. [5.1] Further, while deciding the challenge to the FIR, the High Court should bear in mind the note of caution in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; further that, the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint; and also that, the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. It seems that such note of caution did not have the desired effect in all cases re- emphasizing the need for the High Court to bear in mind the R/SCR.A/12343/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025 settled principle of law that whenever its powers are invoked either under Article 226 of the Constitution or section 482 CrPC for quashing a first information report/complaint, the Courts would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. [5.2] The petitioner has raised all contentions whatever available to him however, same are disputed questions of fact and cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. In this regard, decision of the Privy Council in the case of Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed is required to be referred to, wherein it has been observed that in India, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. It is further observed that it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It is further observed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function. [5.3] The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the R/SCR.A/12343/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025 initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. [6.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (section 482 of the CrPC) vis-à-vis the quashing of impugned FIR. Further, the Court will not be justified in embarking upon any enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness / otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and also that, the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice. [7.0] Hence, present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. [8.0] It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and only for the purpose of deciding present petition and shall not have any bearing on the merits of the pending proceedings. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/10/2025 14:48:52